ReviewActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2014
A critical appraisal of the evidence for using cardiotocography plus ECG ST interval analysis for fetal surveillance in labor. Part II: the meta-analyses.
Review in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- ST waveform analysis vs cardiotocography alone for intrapartum fetal monitoring: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of intrapartum fetal surveillance to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021Pooled it
- Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Cardiotocography combined with ST analysis versus cardiotocography combined with fetal blood sampling in deliveries with abnormal CTG: a randomized trial.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Trial
- Changing Perspectives of Electronic Fetal Monitoring.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2022Review
- The Advent of a New Era of Antenatal Cardiotocography.Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.) · 2022Article
- New FIGO and Swedish intrapartum cardiotocography classification systems incorporated in the fetal ECG ST analysis (STAN) interpretation algorithm: agreements and discrepancies in cardiotocography classification and evaluation of significant ST events.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2018Article
- A pilot exploratory investigation on pregnant women's views regarding STan fetal monitoring technology.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
- A critical appraisal of the evidence for using cardiotocography plus ECG ST interval analysis for fetal surveillance in labor. Part I: the randomized controlled trials.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2014Review
- Comparison of neonatal outcomes between category-1 and non-category-1 Primary Emergency Cesarean Section: A retrospective record review in a tertiary care hospital.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We appraised the methodology, execution and quality of the five published meta-analyses that are based on the five randomized controlled trials which compared cardiotocography (CTG)+ST analysis to cardiotocography. The meta-analyses contained errors, either created de novo in handling of original data or from a failure to recognize essential differences among the randomized controlled trials, particularly in their inclusion criteria and outcome parameters. No meta-analysis contained complete and relevant data from all five randomized controlled trials. We believe that one randomized controlled trial excluded in two of the meta-analyses should have been included, whereas one randomized controlled trial that was included in all meta-analyses, should have been excluded. After correction of the uncovered errors and exclusion of the randomized controlled trial that we deemed inappropriate, our new meta-analysis showed that CTG+ST monitoring significantly reduces the fetal scalp blood sampling usage (risk ratio 0.64; 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.88), total operative delivery rate (0.93; 0.88-0.99) and metabolic acidosis rate (0.61; 0.41-0.91).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.